Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BASIC was not just a programming language

gcher.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 121 posts

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#51

Post by UncleSlacky »

pipes wrote: post #36

Always thought the raspberry pi was missing a trick by not just dropping straight into basic. It is supposed to be a learning tool, Linux is a brick wall of a learning curve (imo!) Anyway it's been a very long time since I used my raspberry pi, maybe this is now a feature.

RISC OS on the Pi includes BBC BASIC:

https://www.riscosopen.org/content/downloads/raspberry-pi

They used to offer a BBC BASIC-only image called RISC OS Pico, which you can still find on the Internet Archive and should still work on older Pis:

https://web.archive.org/web/20181109020203/https://www.risco...

https://web.archive.org/web/20181109020203/http://packages.r...

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#52

Post by flohofwoe »

082349872349872 wrote: post #8
mcbishop wrote: post #2

> The Amstrad CPC 646 would literally take less than a second to boot Wow.

I once read about an OS that booted before the floppy had fully spun up, and was inspired, only to discover when I tried it myself that at computer speeds, even with the floppy seek to load a kernel from a FAT image, it's actually rather easy. (to be fair, I think media corruption was more common back then, so boot-time file system checks and other sanity checks may have been what kept mainstream boots slower?)

Loading speed for cassette tapes and floppy disks was measured in bits per second at the time (usually between a few hundred to a few thousand bps), that was just what the hardware could handle, even without expensive error correction ;)

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#53

Post by UncleSlacky »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #16
CJefferson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could have typoed '664', which was the 464 with a floppy disk drive. However there basic was still in the ROM.

Indeed. I still have my 664 in the loft somewhere!

They're worth quite a bit these days as they were rapidly replaced on the market by the 6128 (which is in my loft).

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#54

Post by zozbot234 »

flohofwoe wrote: post #52
082349872349872 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once read about an OS that booted before the floppy had fully spun up, and was inspired, only to discover when I tried it myself that at computer speeds, even with the floppy seek to load a kernel from a FAT image, it's actually rather easy. (to be fair, I think media corruption was more common back then, so boot-time file system checks and other sanity checks may have been what kept mainstream boots slower?)

Loading speed for cassette tapes and floppy disks was measured in bits per second at the time (usually between a few hundred to a few thousand bps), that was just what the hardware could handle, even without expensive error correction ;)

Makes a lot of sense, too. Why would you even want to load data faster than you can read it on screen, or print it out on paper? That's just a waste for such a minor increase in overall speed.

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#55

Post by flohofwoe »

ikari_pl wrote: post #49
flohofwoe wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think even the graphics routines (like setting a pixel) may have been implemented in AMSDOS Since I just have the CPC Intern book lying around on my desk :) The graphics routines were not part of AMSDOS, but of the GRA ROM pack (the CPC OS was modularized into "packs" each coming with a standardized interface jump table: Kernel (KL), Machine Pack (MP), Jump/Restore (JRE), Screen Pack (SCR), Text Screen (TXT), Gra…

> PS: also important to note that not all CPC models came with the AMSDOS ROM or builtin floppy drive, so the actual operating system and Right, technically correct! On the other hand, the command to return to BASIC from CP/M was "AMSDOS" - the distinction to be seen by the user was to be AMSDOS vs CP/M as two operating systems. Btw. which book describes these internals? ;>>>

There was a popular book series in Germany called 'xxx Intern' where xxx would be a computer model. For instance for the CPC:

https://archive.org/details/cpc-464-intern-bruckmann-english...

(I have a physical copy of the followup book "CPC 664/6128 Intern", archive.org doesn't seem to have that one though)

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#56

Post by Mountain_Skies »

nox100 wrote: post #15
tromp wrote: post #6

> If you ran out of numbers, the renum command would recompute all the line numbers for you. This is the first time I heard of such a BASIC command, even though I grew up learning to program on a Sinclair ZX Spectrum. Which of the home computers of the time had this command? Would it renumber in multiples of 10?

Don't know which ones did. TRS-80, C-64, VIC-20, Atari 800, Apple II, did NOT

Don't know about other TRS-80 models but the Color Computer did have a RENUM command. It worked well as long as all of your GOTO and GOSUB statements jumped to existing line numbers. I learned quickly to at least stub out a REM line if I was going to add a jump to a sub-routine/code block that I hadn't written yet.

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#57

Post by ikari_pl »

flohofwoe wrote: post #55
ikari_pl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> PS: also important to note that not all CPC models came with the AMSDOS ROM or builtin floppy drive, so the actual operating system and Right, technically correct! On the other hand, the command to return to BASIC from CP/M was "AMSDOS" - the distinction to be seen by the user was to be AMSDOS vs CP/M as two operating systems. Btw. which book describes these internals? ;>>>

There was a popular book series in Germany called 'xxx Intern' where xxx would be a computer model. For instance for the CPC: https://archive.org/details/cpc-464-intern-bruckmann-english... (I have a physical copy of the followup book "CPC 664/6128 Intern", archive.org doesn't seem to have that one though)

Awesome, thank you! Appreciated :)

(Amstrad community is the main reason I am thinking of learning German and Spanish :D)

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#58

Post by ikari_pl »

dventimi wrote: post #44

"It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration." --Edsger Dijkstra (1975)

I've dug deep into that quote and it wasn't even so much about the BASIC we know from the 8-bits. ;-) He also criticized every other major language at the time, except Pascal and (slowly emerging) C.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38743062

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#59

Post by CJefferson »

UncleSlacky wrote: post #53
Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I still have my 664 in the loft somewhere!

They're worth quite a bit these days as they were rapidly replaced on the market by the 6128 (which is in my loft).

Wow, I had no idea! There might be a 664 in box in my parent's house somewhere -- although it also might have been discarded some time in the last 20 years (as I imagine happened to many of them).

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#60

Post by wsc981 »

tromp wrote: post #6

> If you ran out of numbers, the renum command would recompute all the line numbers for you. This is the first time I heard of such a BASIC command, even though I grew up learning to program on a Sinclair ZX Spectrum. Which of the home computers of the time had this command? Would it renumber in multiples of 10?

TI-99/4A had it, but not sure if it was included in TI BASIC or only on TI EXTENDED BASIC.
Post reply on HN